Isiolo Governor Abdi Guyo and his deputy, John Lowasa, can breathe a sigh of relief after a three-judge bench of the High Court dismissed a petition seeking their removal from office over alleged party hopping. The ruling, delivered on Friday, December 5, 2025, emphasized the stringent evidentiary requirements for ejecting elected leaders, asserting that defection must be proven through a formal and lawful resignation from the sponsoring party as stipulated by the Political Parties Act.
The petition, filed in June 2023 by Guyo Ali, Mohammed Wario, Teddy Muturi, and Steven Kihonge, claimed that Governor Guyo and Lowasa had defected from the Jubilee Party to the United Democratic Alliance (UDA). The petitioners argued that this alleged defection should automatically disqualify them from holding office, creating a void that necessitated a by-election. They also sought a conservatory order to prevent the leaders from running the county until the matter was resolved.
However, the court found no evidence of valid resignation documents submitted to Jubilee or the Registrar of Political Parties. Justices Jairus Ngaah, Lawrence Mugambi, and John Chigiti ruled that political migration, alignment, or public association with another party does not constitute legal defection unless the strict resignation process outlined in Sections 10 and 11 of the Political Parties Act is followed and proven in court.
Governor Guyo, in his response, maintained that he had never resigned from Jubilee, dismissing the petition as “baseless, ill-intended, and driven purely by political mischief”. He stated, “The court threw out the petition after establishing that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we ever resigned from or defected from the Jubilee Party”.
While acknowledging that unregulated party hopping poses risks to democratic stability and raises ethical concerns under Article 10(2) of the Constitution, the court underscored that judicial intervention is only possible when the legal threshold of proof is met.
This decision provides significant relief for politicians, clarifying that removal from office cannot be based on speculation or political perception.
The ruling reaffirms that governors hold executive authority on behalf of the people, not their political parties, distinguishing between political loyalty and constitutional office.
